Oklahoma Governor Attacks School Choice With Trans Bathroom Panic Law
Charter schools are included in the mandate that students use facilities of their birth sex, regardless of what students and families might want.

The latest attack on school choice comes not from Democrat-supporting union cronies in Chicago and New York, but from the Republican governor of Oklahoma.
On Wednesday, Gov. Kevin Stitt signed into law S.B. 615. This bill requires all public schools to establish and enforce rules requiring students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms that match their birth sex as indicated on their birth certificates.
It's an anti-trans bathroom panic bill—if you need proof that it's panic-driven, it will take effect immediately because lawmakers used an emergency clause in the text that schools have to comply right now "for the preservation of the public peace, health or safety."
The bill includes public charter schools within its text, and that fundamentally means this an anti-school choice bill, despite Stitt's insistence he supports school choice and legislation that would allow families to choose schools that best serve them and their children's needs. What if a charter school wants to deliberately serve the needs of trans students, the way Magic City Acceptance Academy in Alabama has been set up? Magic City is a public charter school, meaning students across the Birmingham area can attend. They don't actually have to be LGBT, but the point of the school is that it has been designed to accommodate the needs of trans students.
In Oklahoma, at least in terms of these facilities, that's not allowed. It does, fortunately, require schools to set up single-occupancy restrooms and changing rooms for students who don't want to use the bathrooms or locker rooms of their birth sex. So a trans student who visibly presents as a male is not going to be forced to use the girls restroom, though he would be barred from using the bathroom he actually prefers.
If this tiresome chapter of LGBT culture-warring in public schools is going to end, it's not going to be the result of mandates or bans from lawmakers and governors. Instead of peace or solutions, what we get is a constant fight over who controls the education system itself. And only the winners and only the majority get to decide what education everybody in that particular area gets.
School choice is supposed to be an opportunity for families and children with particular needs—and trans students most certainly qualify—to find educators and staff that can provide the right education. This bill subverts and undermines the conservative movement for school choice by controlling what choices parents are allowed to make and eliminating ones that politicians don't approve of.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Aaaaand in news that people actually care about...
That was weird. I never hit submit.
Goodfellas star Ray Liotta, 67, dies in his sleep in Dominican Republic where he was filming Dangerous Waters
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10857987/Goodfellas-star-Ray-Liotta-dies-sleep-Dominican-Republic-aged-67.html
Holy shit, Ray's dead? Wow.
We've still got Lou Reed.
I actually have received $30,700 in no extra than 30 days via running part-time via a laptop. Just once I had misplaced my final job, (ras-30) I changed into so perturbed however happily I received this easy on-line provide now doing this I am equipped to get thousand of greenbacks from the consolation of my home. All of you may actually do that profession and advantage extra cash on-line traveling following site.
.
>>>>>>>>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
In memory of Ray
Rest in peace, sweet prince.
Shackford clearly wants want more children to change their sex, but there's no evidence that doing so is beneficial to them (or anyone else).
Change their sex or change their gender? Or change their sex to "affirm" their gender, which makes zero fucking sense.
queue Gervais.
You British or something? Americans don't even know what "queue" means.
Umm. Maybe in your uneducated neck of the woods. You even claim you're a programmer. This is a standard STL container class for fucks sake.
Outside of programming, how many Americans use that word? Zeee-ro.. We don't wait in a queue. We wait in line. Though it would be a good time to cue up some Ricky.
I'm like 90% certain I used queue at least twice this week in the comments.
But. BUT. Dillinger's use here is wrong I think. It should be cue.
nope. see my last below.
People use it. They just can’t spell it.
Do you queue up at the grocery store? If so then you're some weird-ass weirdo. Everyone else is in line.
queue Gervais.
The word you--and sarcasmic-- are looking for is 'cue'
'queue' means 'to stand in line' or refers to the line or 'queue' itself.
Performers get 'cues'
I beat you to it by three minutes.
Take your victories when you can!
"arrange in a queue."
thing is some words have multiple uses. putting Gervais first in line is arranging in a queue.
When you see on tv shows people say "Cue so and so" they are not saying "Put them first in line". They are saying "Signal so and so to begin". As in "Cue the music", or "She never missed a cue".
Your usage works, it just isn't typical, since most of the time you are cuing someone to begin, they aren't in a queue.
It's actually incorrect.
If I have a collection of items and I put them in order, I'm queuing them. If I rearrange things to highlight or make use of a specific member of the queue, I'm dequeuing (not necessarily DQ-ing) that item.
Of course, he could be queuing Gervais right behind Izzard as a pun, but that would still be wrong.
"It's actually incorrect."
No it isn't. In every single place you want to look at the phrase "Cue so and so" you will find it expressed that way. The only times you will find "Queue X" is when you are putting people in line, and that just doesn't happen in film, theatre or any other context you find Gervais up until Biden gets his re-education camps.
We beat the Brits so we wouldn't have to use words like queue, lobster lover!
Could we please just go to single occupancy stalls and stop all this fixation on bathrooms?
and take all of the fun out of cruising in male bathroom urinals to see who has the bigger monster? I bet you are penis shy.
That's the only way I see this ending.
Yes you can go to single occupancy stalls. No you cannot stop all this fixation on bathrooms. Even setting the gender idiocy aside (which single occupancy won't assuage) going to single occupancy stalls, will only cause the calls for low*er* flow toilets will get louder.
Ok, this is not an "Anti-School Choice" initiative. That's asinine. If this law is "Anti School Choice" then *any* regulation of public schools- from building code, to accreditation requirements, to mandates that their teachers have background checks- are Anti School Choice.
It is undeniably Anti-Trans.
He also misses the point about why school choice is as strong as it is. It's the curriculum stupid.
Nobody gives two shits about school choice otherwise.
And undeniably pro woman, but I guess they don't matter to you, Scott or the test of the trans brigaders.
Scott's leap of logic is breathtaking. And just for the record, there is no such thing as an LGBTQ elementary school kid. Human beings don't know who they are until much later in life. They can be convinced by adults to believe they are pretty much anything. That's what Scott is advocating for. All in all he's just another brick in the wall.
I disagree that it is anti-trans.
The whole idea that the trans should get every single demand met no matter how ridiculous is the problem. If trans demand to eat babies and that is denied it will be called anti-trans.
"I want to pee next to the girls."
"no".
"You're anti-trans!"
"no, I'm not. Wear a dress and mince about all you like but you're not peeing next to the girls. Sorry"
I disagree that it is anti-trans.
Second. Reading the actual bill (because Scott "Don't Say Gay" Shackford would never maliciously print misinformation) it allows schools to grant exceptions on an individual basis. The bill just says that there will be sex-segregated bathrooms and that boys can't just waltz into the girls' room and whimsically claim gender identity as a defense.
Color me shocked that Shackford lied about a law because a Republican signed it.
I mean, sure, there is definitely a point to be made that any school choice can be undone by regulations that limit choice to such an extent that all the schools are essentially the same anyways. This is what a lot of people worried about common core.
And yet, Shackford clearly gives zero shits about that larger point. For some reason he is completely obsessed with the cultural blowback against the deeply-creepy-as-fuck trans indoctrination that has been ongoing in schools for the past decade. Do I wish the blowback were more measured? Sure. I do.
But if Shackford were honest here, he would recognize why this blowback is happening. If you, as a parent, had tried to exercise "Choice" at your school by objecting to boys in your girl's bathroom, you would be scolded and potentially canceled. The Trans Activists and the Marxists made this a winner take all system, and won't negotiate. The conservatives have learned that and they know the stakes. Shackford, who I am guessing is not a parent, does not know the stakes.
If this tiresome chapter of LGBT culture-warring in public schools is going to end, it's not going to be the result of mandates or bans from lawmakers and governors. Instead of peace or solutions, what we get is a constant fight over who controls the education system itself. And only the winners and only the majority get to decide what education everybody in that particular area gets.
Almost no one has an issue with the L, the G or the B part of the Alphabet soup.
is B even a thing?
Like being a cowboys fan and an eagles fan at the same time.
Like being a cowboys fan and an eagles fan at the same time.
Nope. That just aint right, man.
God only watches one team through the open roof.
No wonder the world's going to shit
oh sure, blame us gays. Who will arrange your floral needs, tell your wives they look fabulous, and teach you dorky males how to dress snazzy? As I often tell straights who bitch about homosexuals, stop making us!. It is not like we gays fall from the sky. Heterosexuals make homosexuals. The least you can do is own up to that, other than keep the secrets of your husbands when they visit gay bathhouses.
Hey I get all of my fashion advice from zztop
Clean shirt
New shoes
Silk suit
Black tie
Obviously every girl's crazy about you but what about Yatusabes? Yeah Billy Gibbons may be smart dressed but is he flamboyant? I think not.
Obviously every girl's crazy about you but what about Yatusabes?
Pink and black socks.
Don't forget your Cheap Sunglasses
...
And your Pearl Necklace.
Oh yeah!
Just lookin for some Tush...
I don't think the Cowboys represent all guys, but they've sure been disappointing their fans for a quarter century
*gays
And according to outlaw josey Wales, God is one of those fans. Which is why he's pissed and the world is going to shit.
And now you've made me explain the joke, so WHO'S THE REAL VICTIM HERE!
I did laugh, and am equally disappointed in the last quarter century. Maybe God has stopped looking in on his team altogether when the first thing he sees is Jerah through the roof.
Don’t remind me…
What if they're playing each other?
I'm a Steelers fan. Though I'm definitely not a cowboys fan, I live outside of Philly. When the cowboys play the eagles, I cheer for the cowboys.
whoever plays the Eagles should win the game. QED
What if it's the browns?
What if it's the browns?
They should win the first three Q's, as they have done so many times in the past.
According to some gay people... and people who claim to identify as gay here in the comment sections, no.
Plenty of people in this comment section that openly identify as dumb sons of Bs.
I've known some B's.
I'm a T. I might qualify as a L if I'm T enough.
Of course Bs are a thing.
They're hedonists.
go on gay hookup apps or older gay hookup websites. Almost all of the members are "straight, curious or bisexual". True, they can take a Mack truck up their ass, but that don't make them no homo!
I remember when Something Awful did an examination of JO classified ads on Craigslist. All these guys looking to wank with other guys, but they're all totally straight. "We can touch but no gay stuff".
as they bent over, took a 10 inch monster, and asked, "are you in yet?"
I have no hard data, pun intended, but about 25% of the men who frequent gay bathhouses are married "straight" men who are business travelers. As soon as they leave their families on business trips, they know exactly what places to frequent in major cities to get their sexual needs met. Pretty sad really
But. But. (Pun intended) Is there a chance that they are still Bi, but they can't scratch THAT itch at home, so they take care of it on trips?
I like to fish streams. I get all the deep sea fishing I want at home, but it's a bit of a desert with no streams around. Whenever I get back to colorado, I know exactly the locations I need to go to fulfill my needs.
Pervert
Don't worry Nardz, I have plenty of love for everyone. Even you, big boy.
* I mean, assuming you are a trout (which isn't a euphamism) or a brown (which totally is).
You keep your weird sex language to yourself
Is there a chance that they are still Bi, but they can't scratch THAT itch at home, so they take care of it on trips?
Got any odds on whether Tatiana really is from Russia *and* putting herself through nursing school?
The Ls really don't care for the Gs, The Gs barely tolerate the Ls. The Ls and Gs don't mind the Bs provided they have the same equipment and the B's are undecided.
BTW if you read some L or G forums they really hate the Ts. Even transvestites hate th e Ts.
Chappelle had a bit about that some time ago before the Ts all lost their shit about him.
The Gs don't like the Bs. The Gs and Bs don't like the Ts. The Ls don't like anybody.
So students must use facilities of their birth sex. What is the problem with that exactly? To me, it seems the "panic" has come from the other side of this issue, from the people who claim we must allow students to use whatever bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers they want otherwise they are going to kill themselves!
All this bill does is say that everyone should follow the same rules that I do, that Gov. Stitt does, that all other reasonable people do.
Trans r special!1 /REEEE
allow students to use whatever bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers
And join whatever women's sport they want. Because equity!
This law is against rape, whereby an unwombed woman inserts her penis into a wombed woman against the wombed woman's will.
If this law is sexist or genderist, then so are laws against rape.
It's funny how we had this whole process pretty much figured out until about March of 2015, then around the second week of March, the bathroom issue needed to be resolved before the weekend or we were the supremely transphobic nation on the planet and didn't deserve to exist.
"Republicans pounce!"
This is a really nonsensical article.
Don't understand why Reason editors would publish it (unless they too want to encourage more children to change their sex).
Likely because Scott is single, has no one contacting him on his Grindr or Adam4adam gay profiles, and writing these articles makes him a flag waiver.
Because they allow both sides to weigh in and show how much sense their argument makes even if it's garbage? While this argument is absolutely garbage in my opinion I don't object to their printing it, though I am confused as to how someone could come up with it in the first place.
'Because they allow both sides to weigh in"
When has Reason ever had a writer who brought the libertarian perspective from the side of, Don't let women with penises use biological women's bathrooms.?
Every article I've ever seen here goes heavy on the "your a bigot if you think a bio-male should not go into bio-female's locker rooms."
It's complete group think at Reason. A genuine bubble. But than that is what progressive leftists are famous for, even ones masquerading as libertarians.
It creeps me out, because as a libertarian I see the harm done to bio-women, so standing with bio-women on the matter seems obvious.
Ironically, Spiked from across the pond is far more US libertarian in their writings that reason is, particularly on this matter.
Jesus what a stretch. Gimme a break Shackford
Give it a rest, groomer
This. You're supposed to be gay, Scott. Not a pederast.
Up until it became verboten to do so, study after study found a fairly large overlap there. Not all queers are pederasts, but a plurality of pederasts are queers.
You're characterizing this as an attack on school choice — as if, what, choice of toilets is what parents have in mind in picking a school?
Charter schools are government schools, so apparently your beef is that a statute regarding school bathrooms doesn't carve out an exemption for charter schools? How much does your arm hurt from all that stretching?
". . . regardless of what students and families might want."
What do most students and families want?
Wow, you are pathetic
OK Governor signs law protecting girls from assault. Story at 11!
Shall we get you a whaambulance?
Scott's REALLY fixated on children's genitals.
Kinda creepy.
butts. Scott is into butts.
https://twitter.com/SShackford/status/1520053065499389952/photo/1
Is he sexually a top? most fat older gay men like Scott are bottoms. He could be attractive if he lost weight and took himself seriously, but that would require self-respect and introspection. Not gonna happen
Scott has the same problem a lot of gays and especially gay men have; he seems to define his entire self around his taste in sex. Every piece Shackford writes is some variation of "as a gay man..." It is just tiresome and kind of sad. I can't understand why some people can't see there is a lot more to life than sex.
My husband and I had this very discussion last week. In a previous era, not too long ago, gays like us argued our homosexuality did not define us. That is, our homosexuality was only one facet of who we are.
That was then, this is now. People like Scott share none of my values. Just because we are both gay means absolutely nothing. Sadly people like Scott do a grave disservice to the majority of gays and lesbians. In fact, people like Scott are bona fide groomers. Kids dont explore sexuality until puberty or much later.
I have had plenty of gay colleagues and friends over the years. They were all like you. They were people who just happened to be gay. Since I am not gay and wasn't trying to date them, who they did date or sleep with was never an issue and never really came up anymore than whoever and however I was screwing. It really has nothing to do with being gay so much. It is that no one you are not sleeping with really cares or wants to know about your sex life or hear how proud you are of it. It is really that simple.
with one exception, straights want everyone to know about their sex lives, their sexual flings, conquests, failed marriages, their screwed up in-laws, etc.
Look, I get it. Evolution depends on heterosexuals. Yet, evolution had allowed homosexuals to exist. Why? we cant reproduce, and clearly heterosexuals create us. So we are left with 2 options: commit suicide or be happy. Having tried the former, and failed, I embrace the latter.
Some straights do. Not me. I find that to be very low rent.
failed marriages, their screwed up in-laws, etc.
Unless they're having sex (straight) with their in-laws or talking about having sex with their exes, they aren't talking about anything heterosexual. Mrs. Casual and I's fucked up in-laws are her brother and his husband who act like Shackford and her parents who feed into it. They go to a bar and it's not the same as any bar anyone else in the family, gay, straight, asexual went to, even if it was the same bar the week before. Go to Europe. Buy a poodle. All completely different than when the vindictive, divorced (she'll let you know) lesbian Aunt went to Europe or the perpetually-single Uncle bought a dog.
I'm with you and Briggs on the "My sperm donor's got the kids this weekend."
Reason Contributor Brendan O'Neill on the misogyny of the trans movement and the trans protest in Manchester. Interview, "How Woke Won".
Brendan strikes me as a queen. Still, why bother listening to a Marxist?
"Brendan O'Neill is a British pundit and author. .....Once a Trotskyist, O'Neill was formerly a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party and wrote for the party's journal Living Marxism. O'Neill self identifies as a Marxist libertarian.[2][3]"
- Wiki
So was Peter Hitchens.
I never liked that commie bastard either.
his comments about Mother Teresa were beyond disgraceful. They spoke volumes of his persona. I have plenty of friends who are different than me: heterosexuals, atheists, orthodox Jews, evangelical Baptists (my in-laws), socialists, etc. But Marxists are a no-go, especially apologists like Brendan O, who doesnt live the life of a Marxist. all bullshit. See his bio and career history on Wiki.
As much as anything Hitchens was just a jerk and misanthrope. It is true that he happened to hate some of the right people. I think that was more by dumb luck than anything else. If you hate enough people, you will eventually find someone who deserves it.
I have never understood why Libertarians and Conservatives think so much of the guy. He never said anything profound or that interesting. I tried reading one of his novels and found it pretty pedestrian. What is the big deal? My best guess is that some conservatives are just desperate to find some kind of common ground and friendship with leftists. So, when a leftists gives them common ground on anything, that sort of conservative ignores everything else and talks about how great the leftist is.
I believe Christopher was wildly popular with libertarians because he was a vocal, sneering atheist. And there's a branch of libertarianism that swings that way. On the rare occasion that my own personal atheism (or agnosticism) comes up, I'm always careful to say, "don't worry, I'm not THAT kind of Atheist"
And what I mean by that is I'm not the aspy lefty who likes to tweak the noses of Christians for sport but become deathly quiet when Islam comes up.
Cool, so you are an equal opportunity nose tweaker, Christians and Muslims.
I'm neither, I have no interest on tweaking anyone's nose about their religion, unless it's being dictated to me.
Also, noted conservative, Douglas Murray (who's also gay, but the British invented homosexuality so...) was friends with Christopher Hitchens (or at least knew him and had private conversations) and said in an interview that towards the end of his life Christopher was becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the New Atheist movement. (Maybe he was turning into a "not that kind of Atheist" like me, who knows)
He noted it was become increasingly religious in its anti-religious fervor. And Christopher was even being asked by some of the people in the New Atheist movement to, I shit you not, "officiate over their weddings".
Peter or Christopher? You guys are talking about Christopher if I'm correct.
We are. My mistake. I thought the brother was a commie as well. Or am I wrong about that?
Peter was a FORMER Trostkyite. And he as said on numerous occasions that his former beliefs gives him two things:
1. A tremendous amount of guilt he has to carry around with him for the rest of his life.
2. A strong insight into how the left operates with all of its moral superiority.
I suspect you might actually like Peter Hitchens.
And for the record, I don't agree with everything he says, because just surrounding people you completely agree with isn't often helpful.
I enjoy listening to Peter and he has an encyclopedic mind and is a keen debater on global politics.
my bad. I saw Briggs mention "commie" and my thoughts went to Christopher. I did not know about his brother, Peter, who appears to be a polar opposite. This is interesting about Peter on Wiki, which I completely agree as well. I often rebuke conservatives when they blame gays for the decline of heterosexual marriage, a red herring. Heterosexual marriage has declined because they did not take their marriage vows seriously. I happen to take my vows more seriously than most straights we know. Peter Hitchens was right.
.....
"Hitchens was one of the most outspoken opponents of same-sex marriage in 2013, the year before same-sex marriage was legal in Britain.[4] However, in speaking to Guardian journalist Owen Jones in 2015, he said his real issue was with the decline of heterosexual marriage in society and the legalisation "of what was in effect no-fault divorce", and that same-sex marriage is "a side-effect ... It's a consequence of the collapse of heterosexual marriage, and I regret now getting involved in the argument about same-sex marriage, because it was a Stalingrad, a diversion."
I believe in an interview recently (within the last two years) he was asked about gay marriage and Peter said "I regret every saying anything about it."
The man's nothing if not honest. If you're ever interested in seeing the two Hitchens face off, they've actually debated each other. Christopher in support of the Iraq war, Peter (the conservative) against it. Welcome to English politics.
"Heterosexual marriage has declined because"
Bitches can marry you, pay for 20% of the house, then divorce you 2 years later for no reason and take half your money.
I think people are confusing Peter Hitchens and his brother Christopher. Christopher wrote about Sister Teresa. I took it as a ploy to get famous quick. Peter writes conservative and sometimes on religion, he's no atheist.
Sometimes, having someone who's a former Trotskyist is helpful when they explain their former beliefs and why they ditched them.
If you doubt O'Neill's bona fides on issues such as freedom of speech and individualism, you haven't listened much to him. I have little doubt that on economics, he's undoubtedly very left. I'm sure he supports ideas such as the NHS and comprehensive day care (although I haven't much heard his opinions on these specifically, they probably wouldn't be hard to find).
If you reject people out of hand merely because they flirt with various left or far-left ideas, you do yourself a disservice.
I have little doubt that many here (well, those few who may occasionally read my comments) believe I spend all my time watching Fox News. I don't. Most of the people I follow closely are often self-described as people "of the left" and the few that are out and proud about being "on the right" are more often than not British, and carry a very strong, vibrant view of classical liberalism in their hearts.
Sure, I can harumph, cross my arms and refuse to listen to or engage anyone who isn't all in on Bitcoin, Seasteading and colloidal silver and endlessly screeches "Bowf Sidez!" but how boring would that be?
Sowlwell was also a Marxist early in life. I don't think any would call him a Marxists today
He was indeed. And when asked what changed his mind about his Marxism, he famously answered "facts".
Thomas Sowell is king. Love that man, and Walter Williams too, RIP
In a school where everyone is trans, then it’s not an issue, is it?
I cannot understand for the life of me how any gay who isn't just a leftist NPC who believes whatever the party tells him, could think the transgenderism has anything to do with sexual orientation or should have any association with gay rights. One has nothing to do with the other. That doesn't mean that gays are obligated to object to transgenderism, although lesbians might think they are. But, gays have no dog in this fight. And transgender are so insane and so obnoxious, gays are going to end up being caught in the coming backlash because people like Scott have insisted on associated homosexuality with transgenderism. It is a really stupid thing for gays to do./
I find it funny because the trans want to eliminate the gays. They love Iran for that reason
How is that? I am not arguing, I just don't understand how the trans want to eliminate the gays.
brigades. Lesbians are not butch lesbians but men. Effemenite gay men are really women. Lesbians should suck and get fucked by the lady penis because to not do so is transphobic.
What part of same sex attraction is left when everyone can declare themselves anything and you are forced to act as if it is true? At that point there is no straight and no gay allowed just an endless array of people playing power games to get what they want.
That is a really good point. I had not quite thought about it that way. One of the great evils of transgenderism that I noticed a long time ago is that while it claims to make gender fluid, it in fact enforces the most rigid standards for gender imaginable. No one is ever a transwoman butch. They are also some ridiculous caricature of over the top femininity. The whole thing is premised on the idea that you point out that there is no such thing as just a fem man or a more masculine woman. You either meet some absurdly extreme standard or you are really the other gender.
Andrew Sullivan (gay), Bari Weiss (lesbian), Dan Savage (gay), Katie Herzog (lesbian), all married FWIW, and others reject the rabid trans meteor uprising. It is ironic and perhaps predictable that there never really was a Lgbt community. It was all myth and alas talking points. Now that we gays and lesbians are dissenting from the talking points, look who is coming after us?
There is more to gays and lesbians than with whom they have sex.
My experience is that gay men and lesbians get along about as well as cobras and mongoose. As I point out above, Transgenderism has nothing to do with sexual preference is there is no reason why it should be associated with gays. The only reason it is is because the leftists who run the gay rights movement decided it would be.
Lesbians and gays are usually very friendly with each other. Trans not so much. Your mongoose / Cobras analogy doesnt apply
Oh noes attitudes are changing and it makes you uncomfortable! Literally call the police!
You people really don't trust strangers to manage their own private lives. It's fucking insane.
Bake the cake, faggot.
The near-universal human position: I know better than you therefore you should do what I say.
Fuck you all. At least those of you ready to use coercion and force. And psy-ops. And propaganda. And begging.
So I read the article and this is about Locker-rooms too.
I am sorry, I don't care what bits the person has in the stall next to me in a public restroom, but make my daughter look at penises in the Jr. High Locker-room and you are the problem.
Dismiss a bill about locker-rooms and pretend it is about restrooms in headlines, and that makes me realize how manipulative of an argument you are making.
Or you could trust that teachers, coaches, and parents can handle this issue without asshole politicians getting involved. You could think that if you were a libertarian. If you want government to force everyone to treat their own bodies and private choices in a certain way, whether they want to or not, you're not a fucking libertarian but literally the worst statist imaginable.
Fuck off, Tony. This isn't about the governmemt forcing people not to be trans. This is about the government, thru the public schools, forcing everyone else to accept a radical ideology.
Government intrusion is when a public school tells you that your daughter has to tolerate penises in the locker room, whether she wants to or not, and if she doesn't feel comfortable being undressed in a room with a person with a penis, she's a bad person.
I think all nudity in school is inappropriate. Ban locker rooms. I've been saying that for years. If you must have showers in the middle of the school day for whatever reason, make them private stalls. They're children and adolescents. They shouldn't be naked in groups while under public charge.
There, I fixed your fucking totally serious problem you're having from your recliner via the TV.
Yes, it's far more practical to demolish and remodel tens of thousands of school buildings and public facilities so that every person inside them has their own magical personal space than to say to the 0.016% of the population that is trans: "use the bathroom that corresponds to your biology".
So what do you want to do about gay boys and lesbian girls? Do we force them to out themselves and then ban then from gym class or what?
Why don't you try actually thinking through an issue before having an opinion about it?
I think it's disturbing if preteens are still required to be naked around each other in school. Maybe you're 100 years old and can't imagine any other way, but that would also explain your knee-jerk hysteria over trans kids, who, if you actually wanted to, could not occupy any of your thoughts at all and you'd be no worse off. You're the one talking about how few they are.
This is how you know Tony is just an average leftist.
Again, Scott makes it sound like the bill is meant to stamp out transgenderism everywhere when it explicitly makes accommodations for actual trans individuals.
He's, knowingly or not, trying to abort the trans movement ENB-style.
I rarely post anymore, because I don't have anything nice to say.
I find myself hoping libertarianism dies on this hill. The hill of saying it's ok for children to take hormones and mutilate their bodies, because liberty.
Fuck you. Adults are free to do those things. Kids can wait until they're adults. This whole conversation is fucking deranged. It's not even about where everybody shits and pisses. That's cover for saying it's ok for kids to permanently alter their bodies. Fuck you. Kids are impulsive, naive, and want to fit in with their crowds.
Also, Scott, what about women who just don't wanna share a crapper with swinging dicks? Are they all just transphobic bigots?
If you're so into parental rights, what about the parents who don't want boys in the crapper with their daughters?
Why do you want elementary school age children to even be aware of this stupid shit, Scott? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Goddam. I hate posting this way. I hate it. There's enough negativity in the world. But this one issue is why I won't give Reason any more money.
Libertarianism dying on the hill of being against the government forcing people to do things with their bodies they don't want to do?
You aren't for freedom if the only fucking thing you ever talk about is how much you want government to force people to think and shit in a certain way.
Are you a fucking contortionist?
Why, is that something you want the government to ban too?
I don't want kids to drink beer, either. Or snort coke. Or vote. Or serve in the military. You're saying that all that shit is cool, but questioning hormones and surgery for the under 18 crowd makes me a fan of the government? Fuck you.
Tony doesn't actually care about any of those things, he just wants to fuck children because he's a faggot pedophile.
I think that individuals should have rights and liberty and that the government shouldn't be forcing people to make choices about their bodies and private lives they don't want to make. That's all.
Tony makes a fantastic point and demonstrates his steadfast dedication to libertarianism. The government forcing all private and public establishments to let men and adolescent boys piss, shit, bathe, and change clothes with women and adolescent girls regardless of the preferences of the people who own or use those establishments in order to accommodate 0.016% of the population is the essence of liberty. You are not free unless you are free to be a 14 year old girl watching a 40 year old guy with chest hair and a cock and balls shower next to you at the gym. The government forcing people to do things with their bodies they don't want to do is WRONG! Except for forcing people to take an experimental drug, or forcing people to bake cakes for customers they don't like, or forcing people to make websites for people they don't like, or forcing people to arrange flowers for people they don't like, or forcing people to take photos of people they don't like, or forcing people to serve food to people they don't like.
In a lot of those cases, they liked the people just fine, they just didn’t believe they should get married and didn’t want to participate in their ceremony.
Shackford would answer a resounding YES, just as it is bigoted and "transphobic" to not want to shove your dick into the festering wound where a man's cock and balls used to be.
Stop trying to tie trans issues to school choice. Hitching your LGBT indoctrination wagon to a winning cause isn't going to make it popular.
People are using school choice to escape the indoctrination.
They're using school choice because they're suckers. You realize you're all suckers, right? Just essentially gullible. You think *the trans population* is some kind of threat to you because FOX News shouts about it all day.
You're such a moron it is almost impossible for me to fathom. But I've seen the propagandized before. Brains are clay in the hands of charismatic high-priest figures like... Tucker Carlson. Jim Jones. Donald Trump. Ted Cruz. Just peak masculine specimens of charisma.
Fuck off, slaver.
You're the one who wants cops to inspect children's genitals at bathroom doors.
Just like they did in 2012, and 2002, and 1992, and 1982, and 1972, and 1962, and 1952, and 1942, and 1932, and 1922, and 1912 ever since Martha Baer got the first fake cock and balls in 1906, right faggot pedophile?
Golly gee, it's almost like there's been trannies for well over a century and we've never once had to either inspect children's genitals or allow adolescent boys to rape adolescent girls in the school bathroom before.
We never had FOX News telling moronic rubes like you that it was a major crisis.
You're being had because you're dumb.
Choosing which school you want to put your kids in makes you a gullible sucker? I know your first-cousin parents were happy to put you into the shittiest public schools that the Tulsa government could provide their broke asses, but you do realize that a lot of people have been paying out the ass to put their kids in a good school or buy a house in a neighborhood with good schools for about a century, right you retarded faggot?
Or maybe it's all the rapes being covered up by school boards. Could be either one. Since you're the only person at this website that obsessively watches Fox News hoping Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity will hate-spitroast you one day, you'd probably know better than we.
So you want government to fund not only universal schooling, but the travel and housing of all students from K-12 based on the (surely very well informed) whims of parents? Okay, make public schooling more luxurious and expensive. We can tax the rich to do it. Welcome to socialism.
The only people propagandized here are you and Joe.
...and right there.
Anyone who uses the tired trope of "fox news" is not bringing substance to the debate. This place is called "Reason". Granted it often doesn't live up to its potential, but you are a conspiracy theorist in a tight little bubble with no conceptual understanding of the world around you outside of your pretty little black and white mental hellscape.
Believe it or not, a good chunk of us hardly ever tune into Fox News. But someone like you, with a limited mental capacity, no critical thinking ability to speak of, and Alex Jones level credentialed conspiracism wouldn't be able to see the truth if it farted directly into your nostrils.
Republicans want more bullying of vulnerable kids in school, that's their national platform, and they also want any psychopath to be able to shoot them all in the fucking head at any moment.
Don't forget to vote! *Kazoo!*
Fuck off, slaver.
Because getting called "faggot" or "queer" in the halls is just as bad as getting raped by a "transgender" boy in the girl's bathroom.
Please, please, please, fucking PLEASE make this your hill to die on, you pedophile faggot.
Your retarded fucking anecdote you got on some rightwing blog does not move me.
There's a ton of reasons why a man would want to be able to go into the girls' bathroom and do their business with the girls.
ONE reason could be that the man thinks he's a woman and is most comfortable that way.
I can think of lots of other reasons why a man would want to do that.
The key is that the reason doesnt' matter!
No, you can't go pull it out and whiz next to the girls. Sorry. Oh, you think you're a woman? Still no. Oh you're a perv? still no. Oh you have some psychological fear of peeing next to other men for some reason? still no.
Doesn't matter.
Okay, so you want government officials to check the genitals of all schoolchildren, to protect them from pervs.
Yes Tony. Because for the last 233 years since the current US government was adopted we have always inspected children's genitals in order to sort out sex-segregated facilities. Oh wait, that actually never happened at all did it? When we found boys peeking at the girls we just tossed them out of the bathroom and had a talk with their parents before they turned into full-blown multiple rapists like the genderfuck kid in Virginia who allowed to rape a girl in the restroom with no repercussions. Gee wiz, it's almost like you're just a typical faggot man who wants to sexualize children because you totally aren't a pedophile.
Most rapists are heterosexual men. Shall we put them all in cages or what?
lol you're an idiot.
Well, if *all* the students are trans, the problem kind of solves itself. All the biological males calling themselves female will be in one bathroom, and all the biological females calling themselves male will be in the other. Everyone wins?
It's there in the bill and Scott didn't read it. Magic City just has to identify the trans students internally.
It's the perennial stupidity of nihilist libertines. People should be free to immigrate without any documentation of where they're from, where they're going, whether they've paid taxes or not, whether they've collected benefits or not, and it should be racially-motivated crime for you to criticize that even though we have no documentation of their race. People should be free to vote without any documentation of where they're from, where they're going, whether they've paid taxes or not, whether they've collected benefits or not, and it should be a racially-motivated hate crime for you to criticize that even if we have no documentation of their race. People should be free to pee in the middle of whatever restaurant they want, go to the prison of their choosing for doing so, demand other people's labor for any reason they like, demand documentation to affirm their beliefs, freely refute any documentation they insisted they need at any time they like and it should be a gender-motivated hate crime for you to criticize that even if we have no way to know what their gender is that you are supposedly criticizing.
Adult gay men sure are really, really, really, really, really, really, really invested in making sure that young boys get to pee standing up in the women's bathroom. Seems like such a weird thing to be hung up about when you're totally, absolutely, 100% not a pedophile and not attracted to women.
Adult gay men don't give a f*ck about the "LBGTQIA+ community" or what kids do in schools.
The "LBGTQIA+ community" is a joint creation and obsession of progressives and social conservatives, people like you who abuse children to push your political agendas.
If you have penis you use the boys bathroom.
If you have a vagina you use the women's bathroom.
This is one place I don't care what the student or family wants.
The safety of the young students is more important.
I want free food from the grocery store. Does that mean I am entitled to free food? NO
Charter schools are public schools and part of the public school system overseen by your school boards and governators.
The solutions isn't alternative public schools, the solution is not a choice between different flavors of government schools. The real solution is getting out of the government education complex. Send you kids to a private school. Or a church school. Or homeschool them. Find a homeschooling pod. Heck, unschooling.
Well color me shocked... Such a good comment from Brandybuck??
+100000000000
Yes, government imposes regulations on private actors to protect children from inappropriate sexual contacts. How is that news? How is that in any way unusual?
Scott,
First the "T" in LGBT really has nothing to do with LGB. Evolution has produced two sexes in animals. This is not about a sexual preference like straight or gay which does not impact anyone else around you. Someone who is one sex can desire to be another and through dress or surgery can imitate a different sex. In a free country who cares if they do. That said, where you have differences in biological sex in society (like sports or bathrooms), it has to come down to the biological sex of the person. Not what they want to be. If I'm a 12 year old boy in school, my rights are being denied if a 12 year old girl who decided after talking to a trans activist/therapist roaming my school is now a "boy." The only discrimination Scott going on is against science and biology.
I'm legally blind and can see anything with my contacts out...but I want to identify as someone with 20/20 vision...and using this logic I should be able to drive w/o my contacts on and society will have to accept it...see the fallacy there Scott? You need to step back from thinking the "T" has anything to do with the LGB.
Either society will come to accept trans people as a real phenomenon, just like it did with lesbians, gays, and bisexuals, or society will do something else with trans people. All I can hope for is that consciousnesses evolve faster than the concentration camps are built.
What you need to appreciate is that there are about 6,000 more important issues facing society than whatever you fear about trans youth. Right-wing media is feeding all of us crap about the trans menace because it's trying to help Republicans win elections, which they can't do on their policy ideas, since they have none.
UR such a cliche of contradiction and lies...
How exactly are concentration camps going to get built with no new policies (i.e. "none")... No more policies is exactly what Right-Wing is about because Nazi(National Socialist) left-wing 'policies' is exactly what will build concentration camps...
Good grief do tell how did you ever get so stupid?
...and right there.
Anyone who uses the tired trope of "fox news" to try and one-up in a discussion is not bringing substance to the debate. This place is called "Reason". Granted it often doesn't live up to its potential, but you are touting conspiracy theories n a tight little bubble with no conceptual understanding of the world around you outside of your black and white image. You'd make Alex Jones proud.